Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic?

"the highly automated airliner." --- I wonder if this would have happened on a Boeing.

I've always felt that the Airbuses could be dangerous because they are TOO automated. The crash of the early A320 in the forest in France would seem to back that up.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8521231.stm

 

Another blurb today. I wonder what the odds of them finding the data recorder is? Do you guys think it is 1 in 10 or more like 1 in a 100? Or?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=1a66c461-d3b6-452d-94c3-b54578525aad&

 

I'd say that you should keep adding zeroes. Maybe 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000.

 

In a word yes, as I have worked on both Boeing and Airbus I can tell you the air data comes from exactly the same sources however whether a Boeing versus Airbus crew would have reacted differently is the big question.
The crash in the forest was caused by pilot error and had nothing to do with the automated flight control system (AFCS) it does not matter how many or how few automated system you provide if a pilot wants to overide them deliberately then there is not much the designer/engineer can do about it.

 

Reported in today's news that the search pattern has been narrowed, and the BEA is back after the black boxes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8664127.stm

CW

 

Location of crash site was unexpected, leaving investigators believing the aircraft may have turned to head back to Brazil.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10602947

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on this just yet.

The ocean is a very big place.

 

Very Big Place!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O4I820100525
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well, one thing is for sure...

They're still down there awaiting discovery. The data won't go bad, will it?

CW

 

The boxes are water proof but after a few years I imagine the corrosion from the salt water would eat them up.

 

So, they have about another 1-2 years to locate the boxes?

CW

 

No, because sediment will cover the boxes sooner than that imho.....

 

I don't think the boxes separate from the fuselage. I assume they'll be found with other, substantial debris. But, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Hard to cover over that much debris in 2-3 years, I should think.

CW

 

If I'm not mistaken, the boxes (ORANGE) are in the ceiling of the aft fuselage as that has been determined to be an area of the airplane to sustain the least amount of damage (relatively), just forward of the pressure bulkhead. This is true of Boeing aircraft anyway.

This area happens to be just forward of the vertical fin attach points which, depending on the severity of the break up, would affect the likely hood of the boxes remaining with the fuselage.

I would say 50/50 chance either way.

 

So, maybe they've separated or maybe not. If they've separated, and they've stopped pinging, I make the odds WAY longer. If they're together, still long (and certainly not probable), but at least in the realm of the possible.

CW

 

I think they stopped pinging months ago.

 

They did - they're designed to 'ping' for 30 days

 

Yup, pingers are quiet.

CW

 

Airbus and AF have no true interest in finding the boxes, they just have to go through the motions.

 

Perhaps true, but the EADS people might. Or, if not them, the FAA. I'm sure SOMEONE wants to know what happened. Forget the "now we know" thing, it's justified purely on preventing future incidents. Frankly, if I were the FAA, I might consider pulling Airbus' certificates until they can establish what happened. That would certainly kill their business in the US for the time being, but it would also kill the air carriers who've bet the farm on Airbus products. Tough call, but, in the end, isn't it about providing safety to the consumer? Who's the party who needs the protections here?

Of course, I'm sure if there's a major design or materials flaw, Airbus would rather not know. Just like Tylenol would rather have not known there was cyanide in their capsules...

CW

 

Totally different.

That was effectively terrorism. Someone went into stores, bought Tylenol, dumped the med out of the capsules and put in cyanide. He then slipped them back on the shelves.

It didn't happen in manufacturing.

McNeil then redesigned capsules so that they couldn't be opened and re-closed. FWIW, most capsule medications still don't use McNeil's system.

 

The FAA official that did that would be jobless before the sun went down. Too many US air carriers operating Airbus products. And it would not be restricted to that model of Airbus, passengers would be staying away from any Airbus. The entire airline industry would be ringing up Oblablabla 5 minutes after the announcement.

 

Tcar and Rifle,

Yes, I'm aware of the differences and issues. But, in the end, this should be about consumer safety. Not profitability. But, I realize that that's a bit ... polyanna-ish.

For YEARS now, Airbus tail design and materials have been considered (at least in my opinion) the root cause of a couple of major disasters. Or, maybe, it's just speculated that they are. Knowing and hypothesizing are two different things. But, with so many of these aircraft in service now, if there's a design flaw, we NEED to know. But, I'm sure that would be hugely inconvenient AND expensive to deal with. For now, I guess we just keep on flying. I always HOPE I'm on a Boeing product, but...

CW

 

To be honest, I have been about as concerned about the Airbus fly-by-wire and the software as I am about the vertical tail. And I am concerned about both -

Remember that NYC "air-turbulence" crash not long after 9/11? - supposedly caused because the copilot kicked in too much rudder. This supposedly broke the vertical stab.

When I was a young pilot, I was taught that you could not break your airframe (under the manuevering speed) by ANY control input.